LA RÉPONSE À L’INTERVENTION ET L’OFFRE DE SERVICES MULTIPALIERS POUR SOUTENIR L’INCLUSION SCOLAIRE : UN PARADOXE À VISÉE D’EXCLUSION DES ÉLÈVES EN SITUATION DE HANDICAP
Bibliographic record
Abstract
À partir d’un recensement général des écrits, ce texte offre une analyse critique de l’application actuelle des programmes de réponse à l’intervention (RAI) combinés à une offre de services multipaliers (SMP) en contexte d’inclusion scolaire. Cinq dimensions paradoxales sont ainsi présentées. Il s’agit de l’éligibilité des élèves à recevoir des services professionnels, l’identification des élèves ayant des besoins particuliers, les rôles des enseignants et de l’éducation spéciale, les interventions fondées sur les données probantes et les programmes standardisés ainsi que l’utilisation limitée de l’approche par résolution de problèmes (APRP). En bref, nous expliquerons comment la RAI et l’offre de SMP actuelles peuvent contribuer à l’exclusion des élèves qui rencontrent des situations de handicap pédagogiques (SHP) dans leur parcours scolaire.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
Critical analysis of response-to-intervention and multi-tiered service delivery in school inclusion; the object is educational service provision for students with disabilities, not research practice, though its critique of evidence-based programs brushes against the boundary.
This critical analysis concerns educational inclusion programs and disability, not the practice of research.
Critical analysis of school inclusion and response-to-intervention programs; object is educational practice, not research.
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.032 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".